The registrar for the disputed domain name is Register.com, 575 Eight Avenue, 11th floor, New York, NY 10018, United States of America.

3. Procedural History

The essential procedural history of the administrative proceeding is as follows:

(a) Complainant initiated the proceeding by the filing of a Complaint via e-mail, received by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 1, 2002, and in hard copy on July 12, 2002. On July 2, 2002, the Center sent an Acknowledgement of Receipt of the Complaint to the Complainant.

(b) On July 2, 2002, the Center also transmitted a Request for Registrar Verification
to the registrar, with the Registrarís Response received by the Center the same
day, confirming that the domain name at issue was registered through Register.com,
575 Eight Avenue, 11th floor, New York, NY 10018, United States of
America.

(c) On July 15, 2002, the Center had satisfied itself that the Complainant
had complied with all formal requirements pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy, adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN) on August 26, 1999 ("the Policy"),
the Rules for the Policy approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999 ("the
Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy ("the Supplemental Rules"), and transmitted a Notification
of the Complaint and Commencement of the Administrative Proceeding to the Respondent.

(d) In an e-mail sent to the Center on July 23, 2002, Respondent
agreed to transfer to Complainant the domain name at issue, after which submitted
a request for suspension of the proceedings on July 31, 2002. The
Center issued a Notification of Suspension the same day.

(e) On October 9, 2002, Complainant submitted a request for reinstitution of
the proceedings, and the Center sent a notification of reinstitution of the
proceedings to the parties the same day.

(f) No Response has been submitted by the Respondent within the deadline for
the submission of Response. Accordingly, the Center issued a Notification of
Respondent Default on October 30, 2002.

(g) In view of the Complainantís designation of a three-member Administrative
Panel, the Center invited Mr. Peter Nitter to serve as presiding Panelist, and
Mr. Alain Bensoussan and Ms. Angela Fox as Panelists. Having received the
Panelistsí Statements of Acceptance and Declarations of Impartiality and Independence,
the Center formally appointed Mr. Peter Nitter, Mr. Alain Bensoussan
and Ms. Angela Fox as members of the Administrative Panel. On November 13, 2002,
the Center transmitted the case file to the Administrative Panel and notified
the parties of the appointed Panel.

(h) The Panelists find that the Administrative Panel was properly constituted
and appointed in accordance with the Rules and the Supplemental Rules. The Administrative
Panel shall issue its Decision based on the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules
and the Supplemental Rules. The proceedings have been conducted in English.

4. Factual Background

After considering the Complainantís assertions, supported by the documents
enclosed as annexes to the Complaint, and undisputed by Respondent because of
its default, the Panel finds the following:

Complainant is the owner of the mark LAMPE BERGER which is registered extensively
as a trademark throughout the world. The mark is also registered in combination
with other words in a number of countries.

In addition, the Complainant owns a global portfolio of domain names comprising
the words Ďlampe bergerí or variations thereof.

The Respondent has registered the domain name <lampe-berger.com>.

5. Partiesí Contentions

5.1 Complainant

The Complainant asserts that:

The domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to Complainantís
trademarks.

The spelling of Complainantís trade marks and the dominant part of the domain
name at issue are identical and therefore likely to confuse consumers who may
reasonably assume that the domain name is in some way associated with Complainant.

According to previous decisions under the UDRP, the addition of ".com"
is incidental and does not serve to significantly distinguish otherwise identical
domain names and trade marks.

The domain name at issue wholly incorporates a registered trademark owned by
Complainant, and this is sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity
for the purposes of the Policy.

The Respondent has no legitimate interest in respect of the domain name at
issue.

Complainant is the sole owner of the trademarks LAMPE BERGER, LAMPES BERGER
and LA LAMPE BERGER in France, Asia and the United States, as well as many other
countries around the world.

The domain name at issue does not correspond to Respondentís corporate name,
and to the knowledge of Complainant, neither to any trademarks owned by Respondent.
Nor is Respondent commonly known by the domain name at issue, or the words therein.

Complainant has in no way licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use
its trademark or a corresponding domain name.

The domain name was and is registered and used in bad faith.

Complainant has in two instances sent cease and desist letters to the proprietor
of the domain name at issue to inform about its rights, upon which the domain
name has been transferred to a new proprietor. Complainant has not received
an answer from any of the three proprietors of the disputed domain name.

Complainant has used its trademarks continuously and extensively in international
commerce in connection with perfume diffusers and related products in America
and throughout the world over more than one century. Complainant has also invested
substantial sums of money in developing and marketing its goods. Complainantís
trademarks have thus become famous and widely reputed.

Respondentís registering of the disputed domain name took place long after
Complainantís adoption, use and registration of the well-known mark LAMPE BERGER
in the United States. Respondent thus clearly had knowledge, or reasonably should
have had knowledge, of Complainantís trademark. By obtaining the domain name
at issue, Respondent has also prevented the Complainant from registering and
using it in connection with its trade mark products.

According to previous decisions under the UDRP, bad faith may be presumed in
the registration and use of a domain name consisting wholly or partly of the
famous trademark of a third party.

The Complainant requests the Administrative Panel issue a decision that the
contested domain name must be transferred to the Complainant.

5.2 Respondent

The Respondent has not submitted a Response, and is thus in default. Nor has
Respondent made any submissions whatsoever after the Notification of Respondent
Default.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three tests which a Complainant must satisfy
in order to succeed. The Complainant must satisfy that:

(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service
mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of such
domain name; and

(iii) the domain name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in
bad faith.

6.1 Identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark

The Panel has considered the allegation by the Complainant as to the identity
of the domain name at issue with the Complainantís trademarks. As a result of
Respondentís default, these allegations have not been contested.

The domain name at issue consists of a trademark in which Complainant has rights,
only with the addition of a hyphen between the two words Ďlampeí and Ďbergerí,
and such characteristics that are technically essential to a domain name.

In previous proceedings under the UDRP, Panels have found that for purposes
of assessing the confusing similarity between domain names and trade marks,
top-level domain extensions, spaces, hyphens and punctuation are to be ignored.
The Complainant refers the Panel to WIPO Case
No D2000-0413. Similar views have been expressed in WIPO
Cases No D2000-0075, D2000-0119 and
D2000-0206.

Thus, the Panel finds that Respondentís domain name <lamp-berger.com>
is confusingly similar to Complainantís trademark LAMPE BERGER.

6.2 Rights or legitimate interest in the domain name

The Panel has considered the allegation by the Complainant as to the lack of
rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the domain name
at issue. As a result of default, these allegations have not been contested
by the Respondent.

Pursuant to Paragraph 10(a) of the Rules, the Panel considers itself competent
to independently visit the Internet in order to obtain additional information
in a default proceeding (see Cases No. (D2000-0076
and D2000-0141). On November 21, 2002,
the Panel visited the "www.lampe-berger.com" web site of the Respondent
in order to investigate whether there could be found any evidence as to Respondents
rights or the legitimacy of the interest of the Respondent in the contested
domain name. No such evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the domain
name on the part of the Respondent were evident when the website was visited.

Complainant asserts that Respondent has nothing to do with Complainant, or
Complainantís products. It is generally difficult for Complainant to prove that
a business relationship is not in existence, while Paragraph 4(c) of
the Policy at the same time gives Respondent ample opportunity to demonstrate
any actual rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

Where Respondent has failed to give any Response, it is therefore, as shown
in previous decisions under the UDRP (see e.g. Case
No. D2000-0270), sufficient for Complainant to make a prima facie showing
that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at
issue.

There are no indications whatsoever that Complainant has granted Respondent
any rights to use its trademarks, nor the right to register or use the domain
name at issue. This very proceeding is based on the assertion by Complainant
that Respondent lacks such rights. In the circumstances, this Administrative
Panel is thus satisfied that Complainant has established a prima facie
case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the contested
domain name.

Hence, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest
in the contested domain name.

6.3 Registration and use in bad faith

Complainantís allegations with regard to the Respondentís registration and
use of the domain name in bad faith has been considered by the Panel. These
allegations have not been contested by the Respondent because of his default.

The web page corresponding to the domain name at issue is redirected to a URL.
Here, various lamps and fragrances much like the original products of the Complainant
are offered for sale,". The home page also features an article called ĎHistory
of Lampe Bergerí elaborating on the more than hundred year old tradition of
LAMPE BERGER, thus leaving an overall impression that the web page is a
retailer of genuine LAMPE BERGER products. Hence, Complainantís trade mark
LAMPE BERGER is evidently known by Respondent.

The remaining question is therefore whether the Respondent knew about Complainantís
trademarks at the time of the registration of the domain name at issue. Complainant
has documented that it is the holder of several registrations for the trade
marks LAMPE BERGER and LAMPES BERGER and LA LAMPE BERGER in the United States,
France and several Asian countries, as well as a portfolio of domain name registrations
comprising variations of said trade marks.

Said trade mark and domain name registrations are however not sufficient evidence
of Complainantís contentions regarding the reputation of its trademarks. Complainant
has not provided any detailed information on the length and scale of use of
said trademarks to support its assertions that Respondent must have known about
the trademarks when registering the domain name at issue.

The trademarks corresponding to the domain name at issue are however fanciful
marks with an inherent distinctiveness. The Panel finds that said marks seem
sufficiently unusual that it would be highly surprising if the Respondent had
not been aware of them when registering the domain name at issue. Said
domain name is highly unlikely to have been registered if it were not for Complainantís
trade marks.

Respondentís registration of the domain name at issue, and continuous use of
the same, thus appears to be an attempt to exploit the fame and goodwill of
Complainantís trademarks by attracting the public to his web site for commercial
gain.

The Respondent is offering lamps and perfumes for sale through the web page
corresponding with the domain name at issue. The domain name thus creates a
strong likelihood of confusion with Complainantís mark as to the source, sponsorship,
affiliation, or endorsement of the web site.

The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has registered and used the domain
name at issue in bad faith.

7. Decision

The Panel has found that the domain name <lampe-berger.com> is confusingly
similar to the trademark of the Complainant, and that the Respondent has no
rights to or legitimate interests in said domain name. The Panel has further
found that the domain name has been registered in bad faith, and that it has
been and is being used in bad faith.

Therefore, pursuant to Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the
Panel decides to request that the domain name <lampe-berger.com> be transferred
to the Complainant Produits Berger.